> > Learn to think YOURSELF, putz. NFS5 has the best physics of all the NFS games; hence, the NFS series as a whole is more than simple arcade physics; hence the arcade driving sim classification. Get over it.
> No, as a whole NFS is mostly simple physics, "Pole Position" racing.
No, you just can't seem to be able to think relatively. <shrug>
Sorry, but not even the most *** of sims have absolutely realistic physics. Hence, game physics is relative.
It's going around in circles, yet again. You know, Eep, you should
really stick to subjects you know even a little about when you go off
pontificating. It's obvious you have never played a real driving
simulation, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing a ridiculous premise.
Note: I wouldn't HAVE to "go off ponticating" if you didn't go off being a ditz. Attempt to think before replying to my messages and perhaps I won't respond so negatively towards such incompetence in the future. <blink> The premise is sound and has support; you simply choose not to accept that support. <shrug>
Just because the NFS series isn't as "***" a driving sim as some other games doesn't mean it's NOT a driving sim series; it is whether you want to admit it or not, sorry to have to be the one to burst your elite driving simmer fanclub bubble, bub. <snicker>
> > Sorry, but not even the most *** of sims have absolutely realistic physics. Hence, game physics is relative.
> It's going around in circles, yet again. You know, Eep, you should
> really stick to subjects you know even a little about when you go off
> pontificating. It's obvious you have never played a real driving
> simulation, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing a ridiculous premise.
Have you driven said car at 170 miles per hour?
Yeah, I bet driving your Yugo around is really thrilling, Eep.
It's all relative. You are a bigger Ditz.
respond so >negatively towards such incompetence in the future.
Incompetence? Buahahahhhh! I'm not the one that doesn't know what
what a tachometer measures.
There's that Tourette's again.
that support.
My premise is that you are full of shit.
You really should have that looked at, you know. Your doctor needs
to up your haloperidol.
You're just jealous.
> Right... Yet you don't say which one.
No, but simulation doesn't occur any more at that speed than it does at 17 mph.
<yawn>
You didn't show shit, if I recall. Instead you continually prove with each reply that you can't have independent thought. It's quite sad really...
<pats your wittle prepubescant head> That's nice. Run along now.
You're just filtered since you've proven even after a nick change you STILL can't evolve. Sad, twit, sad...
> Because I haven't played many and it's been a while, but I think they were Nascar 2000 and a Formula 1 one--but both were DAMN boring. I prefer NFS5 which IS the most realistic sim of the NFS series.
A simulation, like any model, usually only starts to break down at
the extremes. Driving down a straight road at 17 mph isn't hard to
simulate.
My point exactly.
Awe, did I hurt your feelings? Dat's too bad... Cherry boy!
Simulation implies the intent, of the developers, to simulate
something. If you believe that the developers truly believed they were
accurately simulating any of the aspects of NFSHP2 you are sadly
mistaken. Rather they were going for a "suspension of disbelief"
approach.
Nothing essentially wrong with that, except that it gives people like
you the chance to troll.
Call me crazy, but when I hear "suspension of disbelief" in an automotive
context, my stream-of-consciousness mind starts thinking of VW swing axles,
old Triumph Spitfires, leaf springs, live axles...
Stephen
> > Rather they were going for a "suspension of disbelief" approach.
> Call me crazy, but when I hear "suspension of disbelief" in an automotive
> context, my stream-of-consciousness mind starts thinking of VW swing
axles,
> old Triumph Spitfires, leaf springs, live axles...
> Stephen
> >Just because NFSHP2 isn't as GOOD a sim as NFS5 doesn't mean it's still not a sim.
> Actually it does mean it's not a sim.
> Simulation implies the intent, of the developers, to simulate
> something. If you believe that the developers truly believed they were
> accurately simulating any of the aspects of NFSHP2 you are sadly
> mistaken. Rather they were going for a "suspension of disbelief"
> approach.
> Nothing essentially wrong with that, except that it gives people like
> you the chance to troll.
.... Century ?
It certainly doesn't simulate any current form of automotive racing
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>
> .... Century ?
> It certainly doesn't simulate any current form of automotive racing
Do real cars pivot from the centre ? I rest my case ;)
While I'm at it, why on earth do you insist on crossposting to
rec.autos.simulators when you don't seem to be interested in auto simulators
?
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>
needs spectators and commentators to qualify as the ONLY kind of racing.
> > > HP2 is a racing simulation. Next...
> > .... Century ?
> > It certainly doesn't simulate any current form of automotive racing
> While I'm at it, why on earth do you insist on crossposting to
> rec.autos.simulators when you don't seem to be interested in auto simulators
> ?
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
> Do real cars pivot from the centre ? I rest my case ;)
See above. Attempt to think.
> > > > HP2 is a racing simulation. Next...
> > > .... Century ?
> > > It certainly doesn't simulate any current form of automotive racing
